Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: empty-query behavior, the provinceUuid vs locality-center distinction, and that results are candidates that may need disambiguation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four short sentences, purpose front-loaded, and each sentence carries distinct information (outputs, empty-query behavior, ID semantics, ambiguity handling). No filler, though it is dense for a one-parameter tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, the return format need not be described, and the description still covers the empty-query case and disambiguation. Covers what an agent needs to call it correctly, though the distinction between locality centers and customer addresses remains somewhat terse.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 100% schema coverage on a single optional parameter, the baseline is 3; the schema already documents the query string and its omit-to-list-provinces behavior. The description mostly restates this, adding only the 'seven active provinces' detail, so it does not substantially exceed the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Resolve) plus the exact resource (Costa Rican province, town or district) and its outputs (current catalog IDs and locality centers). No sibling tool overlaps this capability, so an agent can unambiguously route location-resolution work here.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear operational context: empty query lists the seven active provinces, and the tool should be used to clarify ambiguous names. It never states when this is the wrong tool or points to a sibling, but no sibling competes in this domain, so the gap is minor.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.